I believe that's up to the HOF to decide, not the player or his contract. Wade Boggs had it in his contract to go in as a Tampa Bay Devil Ray, and they ignored that.

The hat his plaque has is ultimately up to the HOF (the player, from what I understand, can ask for a certain team, but the HOF has the final decision). Albert just can't wear a Cardinals hat at his HOF induction himself.

And to think these were the two least expensive years...
2012:$12M
2013:$16M
2014:$23M
2015:$24M
2016:$25M
2017:$26M
2018:$27M
2019:$28M
2020:$29M
2021:$30M

Wow!

Just like the Yankee$ signing A-Rod through age 42 at $30M a year, these teams can't be shocked when these guys in all likelihood start fading or breaking down around age 32-35 or so and that the last 7 years of the contract will be terrible.

It must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DumpJerry

Don't forget, this is only one of two contracts Pujols signed with the Angels. The second one is a ten year Personal Services Contract which kicks in for ten years after his current player contract ends. It states that he cannot be seen in public, in pictures, video, etc. wearing any logos or other identifying "marks" from any other MLB team. This means it will as if he never played for the Cardinals. It, too, is a very lucrative contract to ensure his compliance (if he wears a Cubs hat in public, the contract is immediately voided).

Incredible. The Angels are paying $10M a year for 10 years for this? Why would they care if a 50 year old Pujols walks around with a Cardinals hat? Is it worth that much to them to make sure that doesn't happen?

Just like the Yankee$ signing A-Rod through age 42 at $30M a year, these teams can't be shocked when these guys in all likelihood start fading or breaking down around age 32-35 or so and that the last 7 years of the contract will be terrible.

It must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.

It gets even better when you look at their distributions to only six players (those 2015-2016 years will be fun; especially since it's AFTER Trout hits Arbitration)...

Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.

Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.

I don't see what this has to do with math or advanced stats. I'm pretty sure anybody who's ever watched a game of baseball (or any sport for that matter) could tell you that a player probably won't be as good at 35 as he was at 25.

Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.

I don't see what this has to do with math or advanced stats. I'm pretty sure anybody who's ever watched a game of baseball (or any sport for that matter) could tell you that a player probably won't be as good at 35 as he was at 25.

That's being very simplistic. What about rate of decline by position? In football, a running back has a lot less longevity and more rapid decline than say a QB due to the physical abuse they take. Catcher is a more physically demanding position than say first base.

Stats give you the ability to quantify things and compare every possible variable for an informed decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SI1020

Really?

Yeah, really. Baseball is still full of people who use sentimental evaluation criteria like leadership, hustle, or even physical appearance as part of their evaluation of a player.

Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?

That's being very simplistic. What about rate of decline by position? In football, a running back has a lot less longevity and more rapid decline than say a QB due to the physical abuse they take. Catcher is a more physically demanding position than say first base.

Stats give you the ability to quantify things and compare every possible variable for an informed decision.

Yeah, really. Baseball is still full of people who use sentimental evaluation criteria like leadership, hustle, or even physical appearance as part of their evaluation of a player.

Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?

I fail to see the correlation between Hawk's view of baseball and LAAAAA's signing of Pujols. Even if advanced metrics were not utilized in their analysis (a far-fetched assumption, I think), there is very little in the way of traditional scouting that would lead anyone to believe LAAAAA will get even close to their money's worth with that contract.

__________________"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell